Customs duty refund for alleged short-shipment fails without contemporaneous proof and supporting import records.

Refund of customs duty for alleged short-shipped goods was denied because no contemporaneous evidence or supporting import documents established short-landing or pilferage. The goods had been cleared through customs, but the shortage was claimed only after delivery to the consignee's premises, and the invoice and packing particulars did not verify what had actually been shipped. Later replacement by the supplier was insufficient to satisfy the statutory refund conditions. The claim therefore fell outside the refund provisions and was rightly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of customs duty on alleged short-shipped goods was allowable in the absence of contemporaneous evidence and supporting import documents.

Analysis: The goods had been physically cleared from customs charge and the alleged shortage was claimed to have been noticed only at the consignee's premises. No contemporaneous documents were produced to establish short-shipment. The original invoice did not contain details of the goods shipped, packing specifications were not produced, and reliance on the supplier's later replacement of the goods was found insufficient. On these facts, the claim did not fit within the statutory refund provisions relating to short-landing, pilferage, or remission of duty.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not established and was rightly rejected.

---